Add new comment

a couple of quibbles (contradicting yourself?)

1. You said, "This is my own paraphrase. EVERYTHING makes sense, is consistent, explained and never forced. There isn't anything "open to interpretation" "

Then you gave us two choices about how to interpret (belief in God, or in a machine universe) In other words, you conceded that it IS open for interpretation. Although you, mistakenly, give only two choices (belief in God as benevolent or selfish) and not the third choice of Atheism, OR the fourth choice of Agnosticism (which IS covered in the effing movie). OR, the fifth choice of a spiritual life WITHOUT a deity. Ask Buddhists how they feel about that!!

2. Then you condemn the movie for not explaining itself better. But if it had, you wouldn't have had this wonderful opportunity to pontificate to us, and i wouldn't have had the delight of proving you wrong.